Linux-Advocacy Digest #803, Volume #27 Thu, 20 Jul 00 03:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Student run Linux server.
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Paul E. Larson)
MS Windows(tm) is prerequisite for Linux on-line seminar (Charles Razzell)
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 (Tholen) (tholenbot)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Graham Murray)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? ("Adam Warner")
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: Will SUN be allowed to opensource?
Re: I just don't buy it
Re: look, don't talk
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? ("Adam Warner")
Re: Linux, easy to use? (Tim Palmer)
Re: Linux, easy to use? (Tim Palmer)
Re: Linux, easy to use? (Tim Palmer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Student run Linux server.
Date: 20 Jul 2000 01:52:09 -0400
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 22:37:53 +0800, Aravind Sadagopan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>There is a nice way to educate students about Linux.. They will get
>interested anyway because of a lot of things are challenging in the
>Unix world.
High school students don't care about what's challenging. They just
want to get their fucking credits, get as drunk as they can, fuck as
much as they can, and leave. The only exceptions are the geeks, who
probably already know all about Linux and have their own networks
at home.
>First to provoke them would setting up an IRC server, where they can
>discuss things freely.
There are X servers available for non-Unix platforms, such as Windows
and MacOS. These, and a PERL script (unlike WSH, PERL is free on both
Windows and the Mac) that sends an "rsh" command to the server, could
be used in conjunction with an X11 IRC client on the Linux machine
that blows the pants off of mIRC. Combine this with the freedom to
connect to outside IRC servers, however detrimental to "education"
the powers that be may perceive this to be. Note that you need a
shitload of RAM on the server if there's only going to be one of
them and you expect there to be 100 or more users on it at a time
running graphical programs. You might also need multiple NICs.
The Windows-using IRC freaks would want to know where they can
download this IRC client. Tell them, and let them figure out
for themselves that they need "Linux" to use it. When they
ask what "Linux" is, point them to www.linux.org. Tell them
that "it's going to replace Windows one day" or otherwise
convince them that it's the latest cutting-edge technology
and it'll soon be everywhere. Their ignorance of the fact that
there is actually a social struggle going on over Linux and Windows
will make them more likely to just accept that Linux "is the
future".
It's okay to allow them to know that the IRC client is running
"over the network" and use this as a justification for them
having to use a network protocol to download the files they
downloaded with DCC.
While you're at it, you could expose them to more Linux-only software
that users might mistake for Windows software.
WARNING- You might want to actually test this stuff yourself before
exposing it to users. Especially, make sure your network can handle
this kind of traffic.
>Next things would be to find out who are logged on remotely and use
>'talk' to chat with your friends.
This is a little more difficult, as the users would have to be willing
to learn a few Unix commands, and might be dealing with it through
a crappy telnet client.
The few high schoolers that I've tried this with needed a BBS-like
menu system to shield them from such difficult concepts as syntax.
They couldn't figure out "talk username", but they could figure out
how to type "talk", press enter (to run a shell script that is in
their PATH but not a normal Unix user's), and answer a prompt for the
username. They also never figured out that Ctrl+C ended the "talk"
session.
>The next thing can be to give students bandwidth to host
>their own web pages with CGI/Perl PHP scripting.
...and give them GIMP to create the pictures with, and let them know
that the GIMP is Free Software, and tell them that it's as good
as Photoshop, which they'll never have the money to see. High schoolers
love to use image editors at school when no games are available. When
they try to download it, they can find out that it needs "Linux". What
a coincidence!
>Linux has the name
>of being something 'cool' when compared to other unix counterparts
>and its history originated from a student..stress the history
>of the OS. Tell them that its the best development platform, It
>supports a 100 programming languages, Imagine they can compile and
>test their C programs from the server itself!
...then get the school to teach a programming course geared towards
writing games for Linux. High schoolers care more about games than
most anything else. Once this course exists and the aforementioned
mainframe-like setup is proven unfeasable for this kind of work (as
far as I know, the X Window System does not include an X Sound System,
and it'll become a nightmare if the students ever get around to writing
more sophisticated 3D games and trying to display them over the network
while hundreds of other users are using the bandwidth to display IRC
clients), the school might actually allow (and even pay for) more
Linux systems.
With these students knowing how to write Unix programs but not knowing
thing one about programming on Windows, you can direct them to the
colleges that have Unix-oriented computer science courses and steer
them away from Windows-loving colleges.
With a few Linux workstations, you could expose students to Linux
music-making software, such as the stuff on the Linux Dance Music
Project:
http://sql.hitech.dk/ldmp/
Programs like these cost some serious money on Windows. High
school bands would snatch this stuff right up. In time, a Linux box
might appear in the Music Department, depending on what music
courses are taught at your school.
> Lynx, pine will be a interesting change from bloated modern software.
Network lag might make them seem slower, and most users would have
trouble understanding that the software is running on a remote machine
(which is why you have to expose them to lots of graphical, Linux-only
software that they might try to download for their home systems). I've
also seen some Windows users actually try to click on the telnet window
to try to control these programs.
One hint though, unless you get a new telnet client for Windows, if
you set the LINES environment variable to 23 (instead of the default
24), and set the TERM environment variablt to vt100 (instead of the
default "ansi") whenever the user logs in with TERM=ansi, the Windows
telnet client will seem a lot less buggy (but not perfect).
>I think the
>only thing you might have to do is install the server and let htem
>know abt it. They will automatically adapt and begin loving Linux
The mistake you make is that you assume that high school students
love to learn, while in reality, by that age the school system has
taught them to despise learning.
--
Microsoft Windows. Garbage at your fingertips.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul E. Larson)
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 05:56:36 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
wrote:
>On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 01:56:55 GMT, Paul E. Larson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In article <8l5bdh$fdp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>In article <Iqld5.489$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul E. Larson) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> For Linux, at least, as early as 1994(when I started looking at it) it
>>>> was possible to buy computers from nationally advertising companies,
>>>> all you had to do was buy a magazine(Linux Journal)!
>>>
>>>Which means absolutely nothing to Joe and Jane Average Consumer. Like I
>>>said, fine for hard-core geeks who *already know* where to look, but,
>>>for Joe and Jane Average Consumer, there was no choice.
>>>
>>>Did Wal-Mart even carry Linux Journal in 1994?
>>>
>>
>>No, but the chain bookstores(Walden's and Border's) in the area I live did.
>
> I don't recall Linux Journal being at either of those chains
> in my area in 1994.
>
May have been early 95'. But the bookstores where the only source for the
first issue of the magazine after I bought Linux at the local computer show in
late 94'(Spring issue of Linux Quarterly).
Paul
--
"Mr. Rusk you not wearing your tie." -- Frenzy 1972
------------------------------
From: Charles Razzell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: MS Windows(tm) is prerequisite for Linux on-line seminar
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 05:58:36 GMT
I received this in the mail today...
MontaVista is proud to invite you to participate in a free
TechOnLine Seminar titled "Linux: The Internet Appliance Platform"
Register for the seminar now:
http://seminar.techonline.com/montavista1/
[snip]
*****************************************************************
Prerequisites for Seminar include:
Internet Explorer 4.0 (or higher) or Netscape Communicator
MS Windows 3.1, 9x, or NT
Audio capabilities: (sound card + speakers + RealAudio 5.0 or
higher)
[snip]
I am a happy user of Linux (as you can perhaps see
from the headers of this message) but the unintended
irony was probably noted by quite a few recipients
of the above bulk e-mail.
Quite frankly, it should be possible to receive the seminar on
suitably equipped Linux boxes. RealAudio 5.0 is certainly available.
Rgds,
Charles.
------------------------------
From: tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 (Tholen)
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 02:24:31 -0400
In article <lWvd5.50$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Slava Pestov"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman) wrote:
> >> Another unsubstantiated claim.
> >
> > Check the archive, Slava.
> >
>
> The burden of archive checking is yours, tinman. You made the
> unsubstantiated
> claim.
How ironic, coming from someone who makes unsubstantiated claims without
checking archives.
> >> What alleged "Tholen emissions"?
> >
> > The ones that result from digestion,
>
> I see no evidence of "digestion" here.
More evidence of your reading comprehension problems.
> >> >> > now that Tholen's back on CSMA.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> I wonder how Dave Tholen would react to your claims that he's
> >> >> "back on CSMA".
> >> >
> >> > Ask him, I'm sure he'll answer to your satisfaction.
> >>
> >> I'm not here for "satisfaction", tinman.
> >
> > Then why are you here?
> >
>
> Don't you know?
I see you didn't answer the question. Gearing up to lose another
argument, Slava?
--
Prove that African swallows are non-migratory, if you think you can.
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: 20 Jul 2000 06:31:39 GMT
Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Paul Thurrott's WinInfo has this report on Microsoft sales:
: http://www.wininformant.com/display.asp?ID=2832
: And it contains this paragraph:
: "And the U.S. Navy announced that its next generation aircraft carriers, the
: CVN-77, will use Windows 2000 for its mission-critical Integrated Warfare
: System."
Are you sure that by "Integrated Warfare System", that
they don't mean "Unreal Tournament"? :-)
: Frankly I'm dumbfounded.
Seriously, I have to agree with your discontent.
: Now I don't believe Linux is ready be used in such situations either. But to
: trust such an important function to a closed source and potentially not 100%
: reliable operating system seems remarkable (do BSOD ever occur on HCL
: hardware?). Also, I thought Windows 2000 only runs on Intel hardware (and
: aren't there potentially more reliable hardware solutions?)
I recall hearing that Cutler had kept Windows2000 source for
the Alpha around, and that Microsoft was considering supporting
that platform again... anyone else hear any such tidbits on this?
As far as more reliable platforms, oh _GOD_ yes. There are
many archtectures much more suited for serious life/death
purposes. PC hardware, in such circumstances is very
unsettling, IMHO.
: I would have thought that the US Navy would at least use an open
: source/viewable source operating system that they could analyse for suspect
: code, stability and potential security vulnerabilities.
Actually, they would be better off if they simply contracted
a company to create very specific hardware/software solutions
for their needs. I think we're going to see a lot more "ship"
stories, if what you're sharing here is true. Granted, that
last one wasn't particularly an OS problem, but I'd sooner
trust a crocodile with my hand than any PC OS with my life.
: It's not like every Joe Bloggs needs to be able to run a copy of an
: Integrated Warfare System on their home computer.
: Regards,
: Adam Warner
: PS: Maybe I'm paranoid but I'd also be very unhappy to see Windows 2000
: running on civilian airlines.
I agree wholeheartedly. Hey, I like WindowsNT, and most other
PC hardware/software solutions... they all have merit. But they
all also have their places for proper implementation as well.
In short: PC hardware does not belong in combat... EVER.
--
Stephen Edwards (.signature being revamped)
------------------------------
From: Graham Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 18 Jul 2000 21:34:27 +0000
In gnu.misc.discuss, Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Someone worked to produce Bill Gates new house(s). But it wasnt Bill
> Gates. I do not believe that anyone in the world is capable of doing
> so much work, or such wonderful work that they are worth as much as
> the entire population of the poorest 20 countries in the world.
Is he really worth that much, or some of it 'virtual' (ie
unattainable) wealth? If he (or any of the other 'rich' people) were
forced to liquidate all of their assets into cash or a deposit in a
bank current (checking for the Americans) account (ie had to sell
everything), I am certain that the amount they would end up with would
be quite a bit less (though still a considerable fortune) than their
current 'quoted' value.
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 18:37:34 +1200
Hi Christopher,
> I don't agree with it, but the government would most certainly have a
> source code license for such an important function, so the arguments of
> "closed source" are moot.
OK I didn't realise this. Sorry to introduce a red herring. The other points
stand though.
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: 20 Jul 2000 06:45:23 GMT
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[SNIP]
: I don't agree with it, but the government would most certainly have a
: source code license for such an important function, so the arguments of
: "closed source" are moot.
Perhaps so. However, I think that the prospect of
what was told here, assuming that it's not just more
journalistic blithering, is rather dangerous. I just
can't see the feasibility of using any sort of PC
hardware/software solution for anything that people's
lives will depend on. I like WindowsNT very much, but
I can honestly say that I would never fly in a plane
that ran WindowsNT in the cockpit. That would be
absurdly dangerous, IMHO.
* Stephen goes off on a wild tangent momentarily...
Say Chris... maybe you can answer one of my piddly
questions. I seem to recall that you are of British
descent, yes?
A few weeks back, I was watching an episode of "Chef"
(one of the few BBC programs we can see here in the US
on PBS), and there was a comment about a "good cup" in
conjunction with a vulgarity, to which Gareth
(the main character) responds with mild panic.
The fellow who spoke the vulgarity immediately
apologizes, but then Gareth specifies that he wasn't
referring to the vulgarity, but that he was
referring to the "cup" comment, and that he didn't
want people thinking that "he was taking the mickey".
*BOGGLE!*
I normally find European humor styles quite entertaining,
but this one really has my brain on its side... what
in the heck is "taking the mickey?" Any idea what
the joke might have been, because I've missed it.
--
Stephen Edwards (.signature being revamped)
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Will SUN be allowed to opensource?
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 23:08:17 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Assuming file formats is the key to the kingdom, and assuming that
> > StarOffice has as one of its features a translation to and from MS file
> > formats, and assuming they didn't figure out how to do this through
> > reverse-engineering, why would Microsoft allow the open and free
> > publishing of code that would explain how to translate their Word and
> > Excel files?
>
> Is it something that needs Microsoft's permission?
>
>
> > Wouldn't that ruin them?
> >
>
> We can only hope.
>
Microsoft would just kick and scream alot and try to throw their weight
around. Then they would change the file format in the next release in a way
that would make staroffice look bad and their software would automatically
and quietly convert any document it opens into the new format. Which would
tend to make staroffice and other software that may be using the old format
look flaky and too unreliable.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I just don't buy it
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 23:20:22 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 13:40:42 -0700, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >Would you want to maintain your financial records on the server?
>
> Encryption.
Who supplies the encryption software? Where is the key stored? Could the
data ever hit the server without encryption? Could you be sure that data is
secure?
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: look, don't talk
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 23:14:12 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Stewart Gilliland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Because light travels faster than sound, many people appear to be
> intelligent, until you hear them speak."
Is that a variation of the saying "It is better to remain silent and have
people wonder if you are an idiot, than to open you mouth and eliminate all
doubt."?
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 23:42:52 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8l5uf3$3dr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi all,
>
> Paul Thurrott's WinInfo has this report on Microsoft sales:
> http://www.wininformant.com/display.asp?ID=2832
>
> And it contains this paragraph:
> "And the U.S. Navy announced that its next generation aircraft carriers,
the
> CVN-77, will use Windows 2000 for its mission-critical Integrated Warfare
> System."
>
> Frankly I'm dumbfounded.
>
> Now I don't believe Linux is ready be used in such situations either. But
to
> trust such an important function to a closed source and potentially not
100%
> reliable operating system seems remarkable (do BSOD ever occur on HCL
> hardware?). Also, I thought Windows 2000 only runs on Intel hardware (and
> aren't there potentially more reliable hardware solutions?)
>
> I would have thought that the US Navy would at least use an open
> source/viewable source operating system that they could analyse for
suspect
> code, stability and potential security vulnerabilities.
As an answer to your subject line, now you are not the only one. And you
would think that they would have already learned their lesson of just how
unsafe Windows is in such situations. It has already been reported in the
news that the White House and the Pentagon systems that rely on windows have
crashed as a result of infections of the recent email viruses.
A couple of years ago there was a report in the news of a new navel vessel
that was run by computers dependent on Windows being incapacitated when one
computer executed a division by zero error caused the BSOD and it started a
ripple effect and the entire network crashed. The ship's systems were dead
for a few hours in a combat situation the systems would not have been dead.
The ship would have been dead and so would the personel on it and possibly
so would have been any other else that was dependent on that ship being
ready for action. The news reporters seemed to find that ammusing, and
joked about it. I found nothing amusing about it at all.
> It's not like every Joe Bloggs needs to be able to run a copy of an
> Integrated Warfare System on their home computer.
What is worse, it would make thing too easy for a would be sabatour.
> PS: Maybe I'm paranoid but I'd also be very unhappy to see Windows 2000
> running on civilian airlines.
That would give a computer crash a whole new meaning.
I have head talk on the news about local air ports officials trying to get
the FAA to switch to Window for the air traffic control computers, so that
they could lower the job standards of an air traffic controller and so it
would be easier to hire them.
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 18:58:54 +1200
Hi Stephen,
> Are you sure that by "Integrated Warfare System", that
> they don't mean "Unreal Tournament"? :-)
LOL
> : Frankly I'm dumbfounded.
>
> Seriously, I have to agree with your discontent.
<snip>
> As far as more reliable platforms, oh _GOD_ yes. There are
> many archtectures much more suited for serious life/death
> purposes. PC hardware, in such circumstances is very
> unsettling, IMHO.
That's what I thought. Sure a PC can keep running if you don't experience a
major hardware fault but here we're taking about a mission criticial
situation. As you said, maybe the Alpha Windows 2000 platform will be
resurrected (but even so...)
> Actually, they would be better off if they simply contracted
> a company to create very specific hardware/software solutions
> for their needs.
That would be a sensible option.
<snip>
> : PS: Maybe I'm paranoid but I'd also be very unhappy to see Windows 2000
> : running on civilian airlines.
>
> I agree wholeheartedly. Hey, I like WindowsNT, and most other
> PC hardware/software solutions... they all have merit. But they
> all also have their places for proper implementation as well.
>
> In short: PC hardware does not belong in combat... EVER.
Once when I was at the Wellington (New Zealand) airport quite a few of the
arrival/departure television information terminals had crashed with a
familiar Windows GPF. It's one thing if consumer information systems crash,
but it is an entirely different ballpark if an aircraft's operating system
or applications crash.
Obviously it would help if someone could confirm/deny the US Navy's
intentions as I had quoted from that particular news source.
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: 20 Jul 2000 02:41:07 -0500
On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 16:53:27 -0600, John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Pete Goodwin wrote:
>>
>> Being a bit of difficult package to install is hardly a virtue.
>
>As my Dad once said: "If you don't know how to put the darn thing
>together . . . why did you buy the kit!?"
>
>> My point is that I entered something like the following:
>>
>> Monitor "Bloggs"
>>
>> What I did not know was the script gets confused if you enter a " in the
>> parameters - how was I supposed to know that? It did not come back with
>>
>> " is an illegal character
>>
>> it went ahead a generated a script that fails.
>>
>> This has nothing to do with knowing how to type.
>
>Correct. It has everything to do with the all-to-common mistake of
>blaming the package, instead of yourself.
Why should we blaim ourself's? Lienux is just junk, and thats' it.
>
>As my instructor once said: "Don't blame the mountain 'cause you don't
>know how to climb."
>
>Slackware is like a high performance sports car that comes with a manual
>transmission. If you buy such a car without knowing how to drive a
>stick, whose fault is that? Yours, or the cars?
>
>> I am not "following the Apple/MS" party line - I happen to _like_ GUI's. I
>> have become a GUI programmer.
>
>Me too. But a good GUI programmer is aware of the limitations of the
>paradigm. There are things you should not put a GUI on.
>
>> >So I prefer Slackware. It suits my world view.
>>
>> It's a view that is perhaps based in the past.
>
>Nope. That world view will never be obsolete. Knowledgable, trained
>experts will always be in demand.
It was obsoleet when the 70s ended. And by the way, you mispelled "knowladgeibble" you
fucking idiot!
>
>--
>
>If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
>
>John Stevens
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: 20 Jul 2000 02:41:17 -0500
On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 16:53:27 -0600, John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Pete Goodwin wrote:
>>
>> Being a bit of difficult package to install is hardly a virtue.
>
>As my Dad once said: "If you don't know how to put the darn thing
>together . . . why did you buy the kit!?"
>
>> My point is that I entered something like the following:
>>
>> Monitor "Bloggs"
>>
>> What I did not know was the script gets confused if you enter a " in the
>> parameters - how was I supposed to know that? It did not come back with
>>
>> " is an illegal character
>>
>> it went ahead a generated a script that fails.
>>
>> This has nothing to do with knowing how to type.
>
>Correct. It has everything to do with the all-to-common mistake of
>blaming the package, instead of yourself.
Why should we blaim ourself's? Lienux is just junk, and thats' it.
>
>As my instructor once said: "Don't blame the mountain 'cause you don't
>know how to climb."
>
>Slackware is like a high performance sports car that comes with a manual
>transmission. If you buy such a car without knowing how to drive a
>stick, whose fault is that? Yours, or the cars?
>
>> I am not "following the Apple/MS" party line - I happen to _like_ GUI's. I
>> have become a GUI programmer.
>
>Me too. But a good GUI programmer is aware of the limitations of the
>paradigm. There are things you should not put a GUI on.
>
>> >So I prefer Slackware. It suits my world view.
>>
>> It's a view that is perhaps based in the past.
>
>Nope. That world view will never be obsolete. Knowledgable, trained
>experts will always be in demand.
It was obsoleet when the 70s ended. And by the way, you mispelled "knowladgeibble" you
fucking idiot!
>
>--
>
>If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
>
>John Stevens
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: 20 Jul 2000 02:41:27 -0500
On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 16:53:27 -0600, John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Pete Goodwin wrote:
>>
>> Being a bit of difficult package to install is hardly a virtue.
>
>As my Dad once said: "If you don't know how to put the darn thing
>together . . . why did you buy the kit!?"
>
>> My point is that I entered something like the following:
>>
>> Monitor "Bloggs"
>>
>> What I did not know was the script gets confused if you enter a " in the
>> parameters - how was I supposed to know that? It did not come back with
>>
>> " is an illegal character
>>
>> it went ahead a generated a script that fails.
>>
>> This has nothing to do with knowing how to type.
>
>Correct. It has everything to do with the all-to-common mistake of
>blaming the package, instead of yourself.
Why should we blaim ourself's? Lienux is just junk, and thats' it.
>
>As my instructor once said: "Don't blame the mountain 'cause you don't
>know how to climb."
>
>Slackware is like a high performance sports car that comes with a manual
>transmission. If you buy such a car without knowing how to drive a
>stick, whose fault is that? Yours, or the cars?
>
>> I am not "following the Apple/MS" party line - I happen to _like_ GUI's. I
>> have become a GUI programmer.
>
>Me too. But a good GUI programmer is aware of the limitations of the
>paradigm. There are things you should not put a GUI on.
>
>> >So I prefer Slackware. It suits my world view.
>>
>> It's a view that is perhaps based in the past.
>
>Nope. That world view will never be obsolete. Knowledgable, trained
>experts will always be in demand.
It was obsoleet when the 70s ended. And by the way, you mispelled "knowladgeibble" you
fucking idiot!
>
>--
>
>If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
>
>John Stevens
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
